>> senator john carry has been nominated to replace hillary clinton. she will be introducing senator kerry at the confirmation hearing. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern. first, we will bring you "washington journal." then the senate confirmation hearing for john kerry. live coverage of the pentagon news conference with leon panetta and martin dempsey. and about 45 minutes, winnie stachelberg on gun control. max boot on foreign-policy.

bradley shear worker rights in the workplace. >> as secretary i have no greater priority responsibility. as i have said many times, i take responsibility. nobody is more committed to getting this right. i am determined to be the state department -- to leave the state department safer and more secure. it meant moving quickly to respond to the immediate crisis, but also to further protect our people in high threat areas across the region and the world. host: we will get your reaction this morning to hillary clinton's testimony yesterday. we do expect misses clinton on capitol hill again today as john

kerry has his hearing to replace her. for the first 45 minutes, we will get your reaction to the testimony. what's being written and on television. this is your chance to weigh in on what happened yesterday. democ here is the front page of "the washington times." the headline says "tears and rage on benghazi."

we begin with an exchange between the secretary and senator ron johnson. [video clip]journal >

>> do you agree that a simple phone call -- that was a piece of information that could have been easily obtained within hours if not days. >> when you are in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process. no. two, i would recommend you read what they said about it because even today, there are questions being raised. we have no doubt they were terrorists, they killed our people. what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing -- >> there were supposedly protests and something sprung out of that. that was easily ascertained that was not the fact. the american people could have

done that within days. >> the fact is we have four dead americans. whether it was a protest our guys out for a walk to decided to kill some americans, what difference at this point does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again. host: senator johnson responded this morning. yes, secretary clinton, it does make a difference. it is the opposing view.

the american public to know whether or not their president and members of the administration are on top of a crisis and telling them the truth. you can read more of that in " usa today." some early facebook postings on all of this. our first phone call is from chris in port jefferson, new york who is a democrat.

caller: good morning. i think they put on a show. i think what they should do is -- how can you just write off the bat know exactly what is going on right away that far away from here? they need to get all the answers at one time and say what has happened. if you start off immediately you will never get the facts of the bat. host: john from arlington, virginia. a republican. caller: in the european system, somebody generally resigns, but we do not have that system. what they did not go into that meeting yesterday was the fact that our actions in actionsin support of the people overthrowing khaddafi destroyed a security state that allow these guys to get weapons and to

do whatever else they were doing. secondly, we are in bed with the algerians. how the people not read their history on this government there? a lot of people were killed for the same reasons we are criticizing the syrian government for. there are a lot of things they should have covered that they did not cover. if we do not cover it we will be drawn into something nobody will like. host: that was john from virginia. from twitter -- here is the front page of "the wall street journal."

if you look at the jump peace, here. "the new york times" -- here is more from the secretary yesterday.

[video clip] >> for me it is not just policy, it is personal. i stood next to president obama as the marines carried the flag draped caskets off of the plane at andrews. i put my arms around the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers, the sons and daughters, and the wives left alone to raise their children. it has been one of the grade honors of my life to lead the men and women of the state department and u.s. a id. nearly 70,000 serving here in washington, more than 270 posts around the world, they get up and go to work every day often in difficult and dangerous circumstances because they believe as we believe the united states is the most extraordinary force for peace and progress the world has ever known.

>> back to your calls. scott, good morning. caller: i think hillary clinton is very intelligent and smart. publicly she is very smart. however, when you look at the history, when she was the wife of clinton and they bombed us in kenya, nothing was done because she had a political agenda to be president. so she kept pushing it off, her husband to fight the war until they get out of office so they would not have that under them. because she does that, she would not have it on her resume, people are blindsided to what is going on. 911, five years and office, this is part of her problem. now they tested her, she is not

president. put her into the secretary of state. she is a complete failure. look at what she did it again. she tried to blindside us while the president was being inaugurated. host: thank you. caller: i just wanted to call. rand paul ron johnson, come on people. they never mention four americans died in bang gauzy and they are making such a big deal of it. -- benghazi and they never even mention iraq weapons of mass destruction. the thousands of people dead guy over there. you cannot plan these terrorist attacks or however you want to

classify these attacks. look at all the attacks in iraq that have happened. they are saying you can plan these and you know they are coming. come on. get real. what is going on here? [video clip] >> had i been president at the time and i found the did not read the cables, you did not read the cables, i would have relieved you of your post. i think it is inexcusable. we can understand you are not reading every cable. maybe you are not aware of the cable from the ambassador in vienna that asks for $100,000 for an electrical charging station. maybe you are not aware your department spent $100,000 on three comediennes who went to india on a promotional tour. i think you might be able to understand and might be aware of the $80 million spent on a

consulate that will never be built. i think it is inexcusable you did not know about this and he did not read the cables. i would think by anybody's estimation libya has to be one of the hottest of hot spots to run the world. not to know of the request for securities, really i think it cost these people their lives. they could have been saved if somebody had been more available. and somebody was aware of these things. host: you can watch all of the senate hearings on our web site, c-span.org. it is all there for you. the next call is from jason. good morning. caller: good morning. g is, as i was

listening to the testimony, i thought from a police officer's perspective, even after a crime, they actually sit and wait days and days before the question, let's say a murder victim's family in order to catch the killer or whatever perpetrator there was. then release false information to the public in that area. that is basically what happened with mrs. clinton. she said there were all of these demonstrations going on. it just escalated. but mr. johnson said, why did you not make a phone call? i think it is a little more devious than that. i think they knew it was not a demonstration going on. i think they do the whole time and were trying to mislead the american people to take the heat

of the administration as she has done throughout her role -- the whole testimony, sidestep any and all negativity on the president's position. host: here is the opposite view.

here is an exchange between the secretary and john mccain yesterday. [video clip] >> why is it the administration still refuses to provide the full text with the deletion of terrorism in the talking points? why do we care? because of the classified ever mission had been included, it is an entirely different version of events to the american people. going to the american people to tell them what happened, then you ought to have your facts al qaeda iscluding a

decimated and our embassies are secure. here we are four months later and we still do not have the basic information. if you want to go out and tell the american people what happened, you should at least have interviewed the people who were there. instead of saying, no we cannot talk to them because an fbi investigation was going on. host: front page. our next call is an independent from ohio. caller: good morning. i have two. . first, there is no doubt in my mind what happened was muddied for political reasons. if you refuse to associate with a government that plays politics when their allies in the balance of decisions, everybody lies, but the question i asked is who

gets the worst results. the second is on the kind of language used in the inquiries. the state department dropped the ball on libya. nobody asked a simple direct question, why did you deny repeated requests for more protection. by giving a tirade, they dilute the force of the simple question. the hardest and most useful question to answer is a simple direct one. host: thank you for calling. a couple of facebook comments. we have plenty more time for your postings and phone calls. we do want to spend a couple of minutes with eight journalists talking about another huge story. it started yesterday and will continue today with a news conference by the defense secretary. the headline in politico says "

leon panetta to lift the ban on women in combat. guest: good morning, thank you for having me. how did this story come about and what has been the reaction around town and elsewhere? caller: unlike the days of old when a decision like this to allow women to serve in combat would have sparked resistance, you are not hearing a lot about that, not even from the president's opponents on the other side of the aisle. he said they support this move. there are only a couple of people here on the other side of the aisle who oppose this decision to allow women in combat and some of those who does support things so publicly. that represents quite a change.

this is another trend where the outgoing defense secretary has work to make the military more progressive on the heels of "don't ask, don't tell." they are seeing this as a major victory. host: some are stunned according to press reports. can you tell us more? caller: this is something if you are an old hen in the military, you never saw this coming to not allow these women to have front- line roles. i think it is important that while leon panetta has said it will be lifted, that does not mean things will change overnight. this just means it is the start of a conversation. there is a certain process and review the needs to happen. we do have a long way to go here still. host: a lot of reports suggest

not a lot of details out yet. we will be covering a news conference this afternoon, which you can watch here on c-span. what will you be looking for in terms of details? caller: we want to hear how exactly this will work. this will obviously change a longstanding position in the military. while this is obviously a lot for the administration, how do you get there is the big question. one thing you are hearing resistance from is the fact this announcement leads -- a lot of leaders have not been briefed including those who lead the armed services committee. they're not happy about that. host: do we know how chuck hegel feels about this? caller: we do not actually. he does not have a stated

position on this. i think it is something we will be trying to catch on in the days ahead. host: how does this work in terms of congress and the white house itself? is any approval needed? caller: he will have to send a report about this change within the next 30 days, if i am not mistaken. that will have to detail what changes there would be to the service act. that war -- that will be something we will look for and review. this could open the door on whether or not women should be included in a draft if that happens again. host: juana summers, defense reporter for politico. we look forward to reading more of your pieces. we are going to have a news conference by the defense

secretary at 1:30 eastern time. this will be about half of an hour after the john kerry confirmation hearing. it is making a ton of headlines here in washington. here is the front page of "the washington post." elsewhere on the front page of "the washington post." we have been taking your calls to get your reaction. we have richard from louisville, ky. caller: thank you for taking my call. hillary clinton was in front of the house senate committee and the house committee and the

senate committee yesterday for 5.5 hours. i thought she did a great job. i think those who attacked her instead of trying to get to the point of asking questions of what happened, you had a lot of grandstanding by the republicans, especially rand paul. rand paul is using the state of kentucky as a stepping stone. people knew it years ago to run for president. that is all he did yesterday. i think he looks small. i think marco rubio -- i thought he asked his questions with respect to the secretary of the state of the united states of america. to those men who felt attacking hillary clinton was the best way

to go, i think they lost a great opportunity to try to help to get to the point of where we are at, what we need to do, and how we can go forward to protecting our people overseas. host: we have louis. caller: i personally do not believe -- i do not agree with the kentucky caller. i thought secretary clinton was arrogant as usual. she dodged a lot of questions. she is exactly like her husband, spout out a bunch of percentages and things like that that nobody checks the facts. i think the media is beyond belief. that is beside the point. hillary clinton is absolutely without a doubt a bipolar. she travels a lot. she never stays in one place.

what good has she actually done a in the four years she has been in power? i think she is an absolute horrible person. when she got on tv and said, we came, we saw, and killed like a crazy person, i thought if george bush would have done that or any other man would have done that, they would have kicked him out then. host: that was louis. via twitter -- [video clip] >> the two hardest calls i made were to ambassador stevens and sean smith.

i have to say they were extraordinary in their responses and their understanding of pride we had in both men. gratitude we had for their service. i would also just add that while will -- while this was going on and we were trying to understand it, get on top of it, we were continuing to face protests, of violence across the region and as far as india and indonesia. there were so many protests happening and thousands of people were putting our facilities at risk. we were certainly very determined to do what ever we could about and -- benghazi. we were really going to get the last of the americans out of benghazi.

then we were dealing with the threats facing so many of our other facilities. host: facebook.com/cspan is one place to post your comments about all of this. hurrah.linton's last he writes --

randy has been hanging on from pennsylvania, an independent. caller: good morning. i have been on hold for a while but listening to the program. the gentleman from kentucky who called in, i am changing my thought plan, but there was no direct question asked of her who was in charge of getting the e- mails about security. i know she has a big department to handle and a lot of people working for her, but that is the person that ought to be on their asking them why did you not notify hillary clinton? i know she had a lot of responsibility. another thing that she said, all the embassies over in that area according to her were under attack at the same time. i never heard that in the news. what i am saying is if you

cannot dazzle them with finesse. -- caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is -- my concern about the hillary testimony yesterday was that they covered a lot of stuff. they never once mentioned that mitt romney was the first to say that it was an uprising because of the movie at benghazi. why was he not asking -- why was he not asked where he got his information from? nobody has ever asked where he got his information. if they were looking for the truth, they should question everyone. not just the democrats. the man from kentucky, he had it exactly right. they are making fools of

themselves in order to try to make the president look incompetent. thank you for taking my call. host: let's hear from ned. she did not -- she did nothing but dance all day trying to cover up for the administration. that is all she had done. i watched this hearing and i watch the one about gun running. and the attorney general. all of these democratic senators and representatives, they always try to cover up. they do not ask the question. they tried to give the answer they want them to say. this administration, i do not know about it. what kind of idiot would give the moslem brotherhood all of these f-16s, 20 of them and 200 tanks like they are doing right now? we will have to end up destroying them one of these

days. good morning. host: thank youned. this comment -- this is about two minutes long. we will come back and take your calls. it has to do with questioning over whether there was a video in real time durin gthe attack. [video clip] >> you tell the senate this morning that you learned of the attack around 4:00 p.m. on that day. you were involved widely in the coordinated response, which included the department of defense and the white house but

did not speak to the president until later that evening. when did you talk to the president? >> we did find budget issues were at stake. that is why you have independent groups, that is why it was created to look at everything. >> everybody has their own -- >> i would urge -- >> how about when you saw the president? >> i talked to the president at the end of the day, but i had been in constant communication with the national security adviser. i had been on a secure video conferences with high-level officials in the white house. >> she testified that she had actually witnessed this in real time on a monitor. at any time did you see the initial attack on a monitor? >> there was no monitor.

there was no real time. we got the surveillance of videos weeks later. that was the first time was of any video of the attacks. i think there was a misunderstanding. i think that perhaps -- i am trying to clarify this. i may be going on -- i may be going beyond my brief here. she was talking to people who were trying to understand what was going on. >> i must say that admiral mullen suggested that he had seen some kind of video and that within a few moments it was very clear that this was a very coordinated terrorist attack and not some demonstration that had gone around. >> i think this surveillance video that some of you may have seen in a classified setting it demonstrates what happened that night. host: back to twitter.

we have a fort lauderdale quiting on the line. caller: i have been watching the repeat of the testimony all morning. i find it funny that instead of going in there to ask real questions to try to get to the bottom of things, the republicans start seeming more interested in blaming and pointing fingers. i find it funny because it is the same party that went into another country for suppose weapons of mass destruction and we get there it is like, troops, where are they? and we have been in a decade- long war. -- oops, where ar ethey? they are not going to tarnish the reputation over this. i know what happened was tragic and horrible, but they did not

ask the right questions. host: the to our web site, which will take you to the video library. you can watch the senate and house hearings, 5 + hours of testimony yesterday. all there in the entire tea. -- entirety. caller: i had a couple of observations. as the last caller who had spoken. secretary of state clinton was dealing as a fluid situation. as with all fluid situation, even as with the sandy hook situation that happened in conn., intermissions and fast and furious. after mission comes in that fast, it is hard to see what is accurate. days go by and they may have been -- i would as a cover up, but a reluctance to reveal just exactly what happened. i think that the state department and the president of

the united states did a commendable job in handling the situation. as the situation continues to go on. another thing is when you talk about security, the republicans fail to remember that there has been a request for additional security if and all of our consulates and the house is holding up funding for the security. so there is a lot of grandstanding going on. there really is unfortunate that to misses clinton has to deal with this kind of politicizing of the really serious situation that continues today and will continue years from now. host: to the point about embassy security. here's a short piece about funding for security. caller: this is a bipartisan problem. since 2007, the department has consistently requested greater funding for embassy construction and diplomatic security. with the exception of 2010, the congress has consistently

enacted less than requested, most notably in 2012 the department received $340 million less than requested, close to 10% less. over the last two years, cuts to the embassy budget was almost 10% of that as well. host: "clinton grilled on benghazi." have scott from oklahoma, city. caller: i would like to bring up a very relevant -- from thomas jefferson, my favorite president. he said keep french ships with all nations and tangled alliances with none. we have completely ruin that principle. if mitt romney had one the

presidency, he would had the same and interfering policy obama is involved in. dr. paul was the only candidate who agreed with the wise jeffersonian foreign-policy. the republican leadership used massive deceit and fraud in the state conventions to hijack the candidacy. if they had not, we would probably find out the stark difference between interventionism that absolutely insists on being a denture everybody's business and the jeffersonian foreign-policy -- insists on being a in everybody's business. host: on twitter -- we will do this for a couple of more minutes. we want to remind you, in case you missed it, the house passed a bill yesterday suspending the debt ceiling. here is a baltimore sun piece.

also on page 6 of "the baltimore sun" is a picture of john boehner and says -- they show the speaker in a photo saying it would cut the deficit twice as fast as other plants. the speaker is also out there making a speech to the society. the headline basically says this --

his focus is basically to annihilate the republican party. here's a look at you to but. [video clip] >> from what we heard yesterday, it is pretty clear to me -- it should be clear to all you he knows he cannot do any of that as long as the house is controlled by republicans. we are expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration as they attempt to annihilate the republican party. i do believe that is their goal. and just to shut us into the dustbin of history. host: these were remarks to the ripon society. they go on to write to that the transcripts or accurate, and

noted that the speaker regularly attends the event. perhaps we will hear more about this in the days to come. a couple of more calls on the testimony yesterday. kevin is up now. an independent. caller: bush, senior, i wish him all the best. there was a lot of grandstanding yesterday. this country has more problems than all this grandstanding. this country is so divided. you hear about what happened in a rock -- iraq, we have to come together and go after the serious issues. all of this grandstanding, we do not need it anymore. i would like to give my wishes to secretary clinton. she does not have to worry about rand paul being president. host: from the line for

democrats. good morning, wesley. caller: thank you for taking my call. john boehner is correct that democrats are trying to destroy the republican party. they do not have to destroy it because they are destroying it themselves. there are the most radical group of people i have ever seen in my life. blaming hillary clinton is -- wow. think about what bush did and how many lives were lost in iraq and they are still being lost -- i'm a retired marine after 20 years service. it's a game. it's the same. thank you for taking my call.

host: the last call from brooklyn, connecticut. caller: i was extremely disappointed in mrs. clinton and the questionnaires. they really need to read machiavelli and quit arguing amongst themselves. i do not know what she meant by she takes responsibility. back in the clinton administration they did not take responsibility for all the women and children killed and texas. government officials grandstanding, claiming they did not know this and they did not know that. it is their job to know that. nobody is ever held accountable. i think that is what a lot of people are becoming upset about. is not about democrats and republicans. it is about protecting united states citizens. host: as we move on with this "washington journal," we will take a look at the politics of gun control.

our guest will be winnie stachelberg. and later max boot from a new york about the second term foreign-policy agenda. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> it is hard to realize now 25 years after apollo-soyuz with

the climate was like back then. in a way after the stalin years , soviets were very foreign to us. after some of the things that happened, thought they were pretty aggressive people. they were monsters. we very quickly broke through that. when you deal with people that are in the same line of work as you are, when you are around them for a short time while you discover they are human beings -- >> vance brant on the 1975

meeting in space between u.s. astronauts and soviets. sunday on c-span 3. >> what is the best running for a policeman? what's the best training you can get to become a really good police officer has walked a beat. you learn how to use intelligence, information. you learn how to leverage relationships in the community. if people in the community trust you, they will tell you when there are things happening that are not yet crime. you can intervene. they will tell you all about going about doing it. i learned the most in my career from those relationships. >> from high school dropout and single mother to the youngest police chief in d.c. history, more with cahy lanier sunday at

8:00. host: joining me now is winnie stachelberg. there will be a big news conference today led by dianne feinstein and about gun-control. the "usa today," headline says -- what are you looking to hear from the senator and her supporters today? guest: what we will hear today is an introduction of a piece of legislation to renew the assault weapons ban, really which is to stop the sale of more than 100 assault weapons. it also protects gun owners by exempting more than 900 specific hunting and sporting weapons. i think what we will hear is not just talk about the assault weapons ban and the curbing of

high magazine clips, but an understanding that there needs to be a comprehensive approach in the country now to reduce gun violence that includes assault weapons ban, assaults -- reduces the number of clips from 30 rounds to 10 rounds and high- capacity magazines and fixing the background check system. right now we have holes off about the background check system. gun owners themselves, all support insuring that everybody who purchases a gun goes through the background check system. so you will hear that as well. potentially you hear about measures to limit gun trafficking. host: what do you make of what the president has done guest: so:they have really shown a bold leadership in this area to reduce gun violence. they have not only called on congress to act where they need to act, but they have taken

steps, themselves, through executive action to reduce gun violence by calling on federal agencies to said their records to the background check system to ensure that the center for disease control and national institutes of health can actually conduct research on how to reduce gun violence. they are now waiting for congress. in order to ensure we have the most comprehensive approach to reducing gun violence in this country, in addition to what the president and vice president have done, we need congress to act. i think today with senator feinstein and other members of the house and senate, we will have the approach as well. host: that will be on c-span 3 today at 11:00 eastern time. rip mccarthy, representative schumer, the police chief in philadelphia. we want you to phone in to this

segment. we are going to get into the politics of gun control. let people know that we have a fourth line for this particular segment for gun owners. we found the story in "thew new york times." as we get into the politics and what might be doable, the headline says --

would you think is going to be doable here on the hill? guest: he says he represents a state that has many gun owners themselves. when you actually talk to gun owners and nra members, they support by large majorities sensible and strengthening the current gun laws. what they support, 82% of gun owners, 72% of members actually support universal background checks. we are trying to keep guns and weapons out of the hands of dangerous people, criminals, and the seriously mentally ill. when you talk to people in west virginia, gun owners themselves want to be able to have guns in their homes. they also want to ensure that those guns do not fall into the hands of people who should not have them. the other constituency that is important is law enforcement.

they are unanimous in their support for assault weapon ban for capacity magazines and closing loopholes. host: gun control could split obama, reid. they say backing restrictions could hurt the senate leader and other democrats. this story points out that for some democrats up for reelection, supporting the president will be treacherous terrain. they go on to talk about facing reelection battles in states where gun control is politically unpopular making potential votes on the proposals problematic. what might the strategy be at your organization to work with these folks to get what you want done? guest: what we intend to do is

to make clear there is broad support from gun owners and nra members for a number of these measures. to show the politics of this issue. the country's attitudes toward this issue has changed significantly since the last time we had a debate, a comprehensive conversation with the american people reducing gun violence. i think you have seen over time poll after poll showed that people support these approaches. people want to have a background check for every purchase and sale of a gun because you do not want to have guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. now 40% of sales do not have a background check. we ask an nra member if they approve of that, they say, absolutely not. you want to have guns and sensible and owners. caller: yes, the thing i want to talk about a security at

schools. we all know that if somebody tries to walk to a wal-mart store with a tube of toothpaste in their pocket that they did not pay for, the alarms go off. i would like to know where we could not install a system with sensors on guns and a security system at the school where a somebody brings a gun into the campus, the alarms go off. notifying people in the school of the situation, it would also automatically lock the doors and automatically place a call to 9114 possible -- possibly we could slow these people down. guest: i think focusing on schools is absolutely a number one priority. i think the president laid out a number of executive actions was secretary arne duncan of the department of education that look at schools and the climate of bullying, school security increasing the number of school

resource officers. a number of schools have metal detectors in them. if local schools want to increase their security, there are obviously free to do that. appropriations may be there to increase that. keeping the guns out of the hands of people who would use them for ill is the number one priority as well. i think you also have to take a look at what has happened in schools. a lot of people forget at columbine, they're actually where guards on the campus. they exchanged fire with the perpetrators of the crime. they were outgunned because the military-style assault weapons. it is not just having police and armed folks on school campuses. virginia tech had a police force and is what squad and they still were not able to bring down the shooter. host: the washington times above this --spreading gun hysteria is

the way they put it. they ride gun owners should be concerned about the open season declared on their rights. -- they write gun owners should be concerned about the open season declared on their rights. guest: i think the goal is not to take a way anyone's weapons, it is to prevent dangerous criminals, by land abusers, mentally ill from getting these guns. we need to strengthen the gun laws that we have and close the loopholes that we mentioned before. i think it is interesting 87% of nra members agree support for second of them their rights go hand in hand with keeping guns out of the hands of

criminals. sensible gun owners, sportsmen, hunters, treat their guns very carefully. others do not, and that is what we are trying to get out of here. host: we have a gun owner named tim. are you there? caller: my big issue, i am as a and are a member. i am also a gun owner and day and are a structure. -- i am a nra member and a nra instructor. with the assault weapons, it should be nothing with that. it is the people who go out and kill their friends. that is what they need to focus on. pushing the laws that we do have along with fixing who gets the guns. i am all for the better background checks.

possibly lowering the round account and magazines. they need to stop focusing on the weapons. that is not what does the crimes. guest: i think he makes a very good point. a florida is among a handful of states that do so. his pointed out high-capacity magazines and the number of rounds is very important. i think it is one of the things you will hear later today in a press conference on the hill with reducing the number of rounds from a 30-10. i think these weapons are meant for the military battlefield. they are meant to cause as much damage. hunters and sportsmen and it is the first round that counts when you're shooting.

host: back to the piece from "the new york times." mr.manchin is just to beginning of gun control advocates worry ies. we have a slide we can show you about the politics. senator jay rockefeller who is retiring, the president in his state laws by 26 points. these are red state senators. host: and on and on.

guest: no one should mistake what is going to come up on capitol hill as an easy fight. this is a debate that this country has not had in a full way in many years. it is new to people and to members. those that you mentioned, in number of them are considering thinking about how you address this issue. doing nothing after the newtown tragedy -- there are about 33 americans who are killed by guns every single day. it's not just about newtown. we have to take that tragedy and turned it around.

we need conversations with senators and congress people in tough districts, to ensure that every cell of a gun has say -- every sale of a gun has a background check. these are sensible steps to reduce gun violence. the talk about harry reid and the picture with wayne lapierre. this is not going to be an easy fight. it is a conversation the american people want to have with their leaders. there is quite a bit of resolve on this issue. talking to the families that lost children and educators, this is a different time.

this is a new paradigm. senator schumer was in the fight in passing the brady bill and the first assault weapons ban. there will be democrats and republicans that will face tough votes for sure. the polling has changed dramatically. most show a majority of americans support closing the private sale loophole and reducing high-capacity magazines. host: edward for winnie stachelberg. caller: good morning. i think it to be more about nut control. the democrats do not seem to have a problem with tinkering

with the second amendment. how would it democrats feel if the republicans were tinkering with the first amendment and the cannot use black or use the n- word. how would you feel about that? guest: this is not about gun control. keeping guns out of the hands -- from people who should not have them. a key part of the legislative package is to ensure a background system keeps guns out of the hands of people who should not own them. the background system has holes . people did not submit records. ly five fail for reasons o

the victif mental health. host: we have bill from pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: good morning. you are doing a good job. i' write to the newspaper all te time. it is not about gun control. talk about the criminals that go around killing these people. tell the president what is the right thing to do. a woman that almost got killed in arizona.

should get 150 years in jail. to bring the crimes down to brazil. guest: the callers that raise issue about gun violence in this country all said we would need to do is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, of violent abusers and i cannot agree more. the conversation we will have and the executive action the president has taken so far, things that states have begun to do weather in new york or governor o'malley introduced sensible reforms in maryland, those are all designed to protect law-abiding gun owners and to reduce gun violence in this country.

9 and of 10 crimes, the noton using the gun is the original owner. guns are in the hands of irresponsible people. host: senator feinstein will have a news conference today and it will be live on c-span3. reminder about what the president has put forth in congress. he is calling for background checks for all gun sales. host: that is what the president would like to do. we have a video from a

republican from virginia to the opposition of the reinstatement of the assault ban. [video clip] >> the real issue is an effort -- i voted against it. i voted to repeal it. that was an effort to ban semi- automatic weapons. they are distinguished from other weapons called hunting rifles and handguns by the looks of the weapon. the folding stock. the weapon functions the same way whether to see a hunting rifle or so-called assault weapon. statistics show that the ban had

no impact on protecting united states citizens. i go back to the second amendment right that citizens have. the court held for the first time -- we do believe they have the right to own weapons -- the court affirmed that in a recent decision. when you step in to regulate the way most modern weapons function, you're taking away the right to own a firearm. guest: i want to point to a poll. 62% favor a ban on the possession of semiautomatic weapons. there's a different context that we are having the conversation.

he talked about the debate in 1993, 1994. i want to take issue with the fact that the assault weapons ban does not work. a study found during the tenure of federal ban, the number of guns police recovered dropped to 9%.ow of lo the number jumped to 20% six years later after the ban expired. it is supported by over majorities of the american public. it will be a challenge to get these kinds of sensible strengthening of gun laws to

reduce gun violence through the house of representatives. it will be hard to move legislation in the senate. chairman leahy house call for a hearing to talk about gun violence. it is the beginning of the conversation. as more parents get involved, they want to see their children protected. host: back to the calls. terry from georgia, good morning. caller: who is the criminal and who is mentally ill? if you have a criminal on a drug possession and it is a felony,

he has lost his rights. you are going through a divorce. you are going to counseling and you are stressed and taking medicine. does that consider you to be mentally ill? it is easy to take somebody's rights. if you would comment on who is a criminal and who is mentally ill. guest: those who have been convicted of crimes, people understand they should not have guns. someone convicted of a crime should not have a gun. someone on the terrorist watch list should not be able to have a gun. the christmas eve killing of two

firefighters in new york. the killer was convicted of a crime and went through a straw purchaser and bought the gun at the second person and was able to kill two firefighters. that should never have happened. that record should have been in the database. the caller continues to point out that guns should not be in the hands of criminals and the dangers mentally ill. somebody going through counseling, that should be up to the doctor. the terrible tragedy at virginia tech. the mental health record should have been submitted to the database.

it was not. he was allowed to purchase a firearm because the records were not up to date. host: shane is a gun owner. welcome to the program. caller: i am an nra member, retired army. the second amendment is not just for sportsmen and hunters. it is the opposite. i'm tired to hear the second amendment was for sportsmen and hunters. the concept -- everybody has high-cap magazines. i own several what you would

call assault weapons. the ones i own that you want to never insulted anyone. should there be a stronger background checks? absolutely. did affect -- should it affect me? obsolete 9 -- absolutely not. this is not a gun problem. this is an american problem. the president was talking about common sense. even at gun shows -- as far as 10-round magazines.

host: thanks, shane. guest: one point he raises is the fact that he is an nra member and he supports the universal background checks. officials are out of step with their 40 million members of the nra. that is a point you will hear in the debate about reducing gun violence. the nra lobby and nra officials are out of step with the members. support for universal background checks is something that and remembers support. host: back to the process on

capitol hill. "the washington post" talks about the process. host: any thoughts? guest: there are different components and part of it comprehensive approach to reduce gun violence. i would add to gun trafficking

which is a bill joined by senator schumer. gun trafficking -- so many guns in one state have come from another state. we need to strengthen those laws, but they are handguns or rifles and assault weapons. no one knows which bill will go first. the first piece is hearings on the subject. universal background check and trafficking -- i think "the washington post" notes the assault weapons ban is the most challenging. high-capacity magazines -- there was a steady to reduce gun

violence. the effort to reduce gun violence. universal background checks are essential. callers have all noted getting guns out of the hands of criminals is the number-one priority. host: bill clinton said this from earlier this month. host: he is talking to democrats here. any thoughts? guest: this is about gun owners

have been a right to own those guns whether they are sportsmen are hunters or whether they keep a gun safely in their home. nobody is talking about taking those guns away. people who should not have access to guns do not. law enforcement joins with people to make sure that doesn't happen. i think president clinton is right. the country is ready for a conversation about that. people are not so far apart when it comes to making sure guns stay out of the hands of the people that should not have them. guest: they are moved by

purchases and online purchases. the horrible tragedy in wisconsin where somebody who was convicted of domestic violence and was convicted and a temporary restraining order was placed on him and he went to buy a gun and was denied. he went online to where 40% of guns are purchased without a background check. he purchased a gun and walked into the day spa, killed his wife, two co-workers, then killed himself. guns purchased through the lack of adding records like virginia tech -- 33 people are killed with guns every single day in this country. many of them, guns should not be

in the hands of those people. there is traffic that needs to stop. host: rex is on for journal@c- winnie stachelberg. hi, rex. caller: it is my belief that all handguns should be banned. the only people that should have any business with them is law enforcement or military. thank you. guest: it is hard to take issue with someone who is a gun owner and military talking about where and how guns should be used.

i think the republican from illinois this former military and has fought and is a proponent of the sensible gun laws that are being talked about and will join senator gillibrand on their gun trafficking bill. the military understands how the military uses certain of these weapons that are meant to shoot and kill and to spray bullets in as far and wide a place and that is not where guns should be on the streets of detroit and new york city. host: a comment on twitter. doug, a gun owner from las

vegas. caller: good morning. all the stuff about high- capacity magazines -- just watch what has happened in our country. remember the rodney king riots. the immediate showed the guy -- the media showing the guy getting beat up over and over again. the whole mob running down the street. they turned around and went the other way. that is why i need a high- capacity magazines. host: let's get a response. guest: what we do not want is to

arm citizens. we do not want citizens to be walking around with these weapons. we do not want to be outgunned to do our job. gabby giffords was in tucson at a public event with their constituents. there was someone in the parking lot who had a weapon. that individual nearly killed the wrong person because he thought the person that was holding down the shooter was a perpetrator of the crime and he nearly killed a good samaritan. having more guns is not the answer. have think more guns in schools is not the answer.

law enforcement are opposed to that. host: our guest has a master's from george washington university. she was with the human rights campaign for 11 years. he spent much of your career on gay and lesbian issues. what did she think of the president's inaugural speech? guest: i thought it was amazing. the message he shared about, this is our time and this is our challenge. for me, the most memorable line was way talk about the marchers from seneca to selma to

stonewall in such a clear and simple phrase he captured the struggle of some many of us, the civil rights challenge of so many of us. we need to engage in the conversation. host: what do you expect from the congress in this area? guest: much has happened in the congress. out efforts were mostly about blocking bad things from happening. we did that in the early 2000's. i see parallels with reducing gun violence with marriage equality and support for the gay and lesbian community. we see support from republicans for marriage equality and

support from democrats. continued efforts to pass the respect for marriage act, which would get rid of the defense for marriage act. i see the courts -- the supreme court is taking up marriage equality. they will be heard in march with a decision heard in june. there has been a shift in public attitudes, just as i see a shift on reducing gun violence. host: good morning. caller: i watch the news a lot and i see the shootings and the mass shootings are committed by the mentally ill.

i have a son and i see this and my son. no gun control law would control him if he got loose. i have tried to get him help. i tell people what is going on and nothing is ever done. it is not about the gun owners or the guns. it is about nobody helping the mentally ill. he got his hands on a gun at one time. it.didn't even have to buy thank you. guest: an important point about mental illness. there is a horrible stigma around it. i hope it will lead to important

conversations and the policies around mental illness. we have seen it when it comes to the president who has directed his agencies to make sure more research can be done on gun violence and also that mental illness has appropriate funding sources, and most important that people mentally ill that should have access to guns do not have access to guns. cris has done an admirable job to that. others have not. host: john, a gun owner from michigan. caller: good morning. i am a gun owner. i agree with the previous caller, that it has nothing to

do with hunting. personal protection. the politics of gun control. the new laws would accomplish anything. you have lots of policies in place that do not work. people still use drugs. the last caller stated it is and not an issue with the guns. how much should we sacrifice to get the government more control. thought.nal guest: michigan requires

purchases to acquire a permanent. i think the sensible laws of michigan should be the law of the land. this is not about controlling guns. it is making sure all of us can live peacefully and safely and to ensure reducing gun violence goes hand in hand with the second amendment. host: our guest has been winnie stachelberg, executive vice president at the center for american progress. i appreciate your time. guest: good to be with you. host: up next is max boot, a senior fellow from the council on foreign relations. we'll talk later with the attorney bradley shear who will

talk about workplace speech and how they apply to speech on social media outlets. all that is coming up. news from c-span radio. >> u.k. nationals are urged to leave benghazi. a specific and imminent threat against westerners. they would not comment on the nature of the threat. hillary clinton testified about the attack on the american mission in benghazi. that attack killing christopher stevens and three other americans. a statement from north korea warned the country is prepared to conduct a nuclear test. this follows the condemnation of

north korea on tuesday and expanded sanctions for its december rocket launch. north korea said the launch was a peaceful rocket mission. the associated press is reporting president obama plans to nominate mary jo white as the next head of the securities and exchange commission. report that john kerry plans to divest holdings in dozens of companies in his company's vast financial portfolio. he notified the state department that within 90 days of his confirmation, would move to sell off holdings in three trusts. he is the wealthiest man in the

senate. he is worth more than $184 million. you can hear it live coverage of his confirmation hearings on c-span radio or watch it on c- span. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> the 1930's are known for the hard economic times. you see everything from alcoholics anonymous developed to various social activist movements. communism has a huge appeal. her goal is to educate people so the great depression when never happen again.

an idea we can teach people certain skills. >> the dark side of the personal finance industry saturday night at 10:00 p.m. on c-span2. like us on facebook. c-span, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from near city this morning is max boot. here is the front page of "the new york times." we will hear from the secretary today. what is your reaction to this story?

guest: i do not have their problems with this. women are ready in combat. this is something i talked about in my new book, "invisible armies." there is no escape. women are exposed to the danger of combat. lifting the ban makes sense. look to see if you want to have women in a small infantry platoon that may be on the front lines. that may or may not be appropriate. the blanket prohibition -- i think it makes sense to lift the blanket prohibition. host: the other big story was

the testimony on benghazi. how much did you watch? guest: i do not think there were a lot of surprises. i don't think the senators landed very many blows on secretary of state clinton. all of the political hubbub about whether it would be an act of terrorism -- to me, a lot of that is white noise. there's not been an attempt to have stability in libya. the obama administration has been repeating the mistake that the bush administration made in iraq and afghanistan.

they were focused on the military campaign but not focus on the nation building. we have paid a huge cost for that in iraq afghanistan. a lot of the arms in the arsenal of muammar gaddafi have been smuggled into countries like y fueled a the fi fresh insurgency. we have taken our eye off the ball in libya ever since the overthrow of gaddafi. that's the big issue from the hearings. host: our guest is max boot,

senior fellow with the council on foreign relations. was a senior foreign policy adviser to the john mccain campaign in 2008. he is the author of a new book called "invisible armies." a little more about the faces of your book -- a little more about the thesis of your book. this idea of guerrilla warfare is not something new. guest: i exam the long history of insurgency and guerrilla warfare and it predates conventional conflicts. tribal warfare is essentially grow warfare. conventional warfare is a

relatively recent invention that only our rose about 5 under years ago in mesopotamia -- 500 years ago. what was the last conventional conflict that we have seen? 2008 when russia invaded georgia. there are thousands of people dying in countries like afghanistan, a rock, syria, -- mali. these are not conventional wars . we should not be surprised it has ever been thus and it will hus.ys pabe t

they are the norm. we better be ready for the kind of wars we're seeing now. we're not going to be out of the business of fighting insurgencies. host: how is the u.s. military doing? how does the military prepare itself for future wars of this kind? guest: the u.s. military has not done well in preparing for this kind of conflict. they focus on mirror-image adversary. we paid a heavy price in vietnam iraq.ghanistan adnd they have transformed themselves

over the past decade. the innovation is coming from the grassroots level. they have transformed the way we fight. the military has become a superb in counterinsurgency. my concern is we will repeat the same mistake that we made after vietnam. after everything we learn, it went into the wastepaper basket and we forgot it all. my concern is there are people in the military who say, thank goodness we're getting out of iraq. we didn't have to worry about counterinsurgency. to my mind, that would be a tragic mistake.

this kind of warfare is not going away. it will remain the dominant form of warfare. we have to be ready for it. host: john from georgia. caller: how are you doing? if we let these terrorist keep killing americans and we look the other way, they will it.bably just get tired of t to mrs. clinton was talking about. is the difference -- what is the difference? guest: i don't think our adversaries will get tired of killing americans. their blood lust is pretty

limitless. what frightens me is that terrorists will get their hands and more potent weapons. the destructive power available to the insurgents has been increasing. western armies in distant regions of the world were facing rebels who were armed with nothing more than bows and arrows 100 years ago. today, every young man has access to an ak-47, explosives, all these munitions. what is terrifying is the possibility that someday terrorists could get their hands on weapons of mass

destruction. just imagine what would happen if a terrorist cell got their hands on a nuclear weapon. they could have more killing capacity then the entire army of a country like brazil or germany. that is something we have to worry about. look at the instability in pakistan. this is a real danger we have to think about in the future. if we ignore them, that is a prescription for getting more americans killed. host: i want to get your reaction to what the secretary of state had to say yes today. here's what she had to say. [video clip]

guest: i think you would hear the same from the intelligence community or dod. the work that was done in afghanistan and pakistan, they have taken out a whole cadre of leadership. people have migrated back to other parts of the world who are affiliates, part of the jihad syndicate. they are extremists and have designs on overthrowing existing governments, control and territory. there has been the decimation of al qaeda in the afghanistan- pakistan region, we have to

contend with the wannabes and the affiliate's going forward. host: any reaction? guest: there has been a loss of capacity on the part of al qaeda central and pakistan. because osama bin laden is dead, that doesn't mean allocate it is dead -- it does mean al qaeda is dead. they are very much alive. they have migrated. they are now seeing a new opening in the arab spring. they look for any body which has weekend and they try to take it over. there are a lot week states because of the events of the arab spring.

places like yemen, somalia, mali -- all these places are prime breeding grounds for terrorism and we're seeing al in.a affiliate's mos move al qaeda it in the arabian peninsula. are growingfiliate's more dangerous. they have taken control of northern mali. that is were the french are fighting them. otherwise they could take over all of mali and transform it into another afghanistan. that is a dangerous phenomenon.

the notion that al qaeda is on his way to defeat. only one small part of al qaeda is on its way to defeat. host: joanne from san diego, good morning. caller: we took the benghazi tragedy very hard in san diego. we had several memorials in our newspaper. i was so disappointed at the hearing yesterday. are out think the facts to the american people. who would order a stand down? did she talk directly on the special line to the ambassador?

they didn't discuss this cover- up with the video, which i think is so appalling. i am concerned whether -- where is the media, the patriotic democrats? we have to get to the bottom of this. guest: i wouldn't call this a cover-up. i saw evidence of the confusion within the administration about how to prepare for the security danger in benghazi. i think there are still some unanswered questions about where they monitoring events? what was the military response that was coupled --

contemplated? why have we been treating this as a law enforcement matter? i think the question is, why haven't we done more to stabilize libya and to aid them? by allowing those conditions to exist, those are the conditions that led to the deaths of ambassador and the three americans. .hat's not what this is this is a policy screw up that needs to be corrected. host: charles is our next caller. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i am a vietnam veteran. when we went on an operation, the chaplain would tell us we had god on our side. i believed that. we got our butts kicked in vietnam. is that a problem that you see with our country trying to exploit our beliefs and other individuals that have other beliefs about their religion and their gods? we have they warfare going on around this country. we are talking about gun control.

if i want to see somebody taken now, why do have to go inside a school? guest: i want to thank the caller for his service in vietnam. this is one of the big shifts in its war effort than i write about in my book. the major philosophy for insurgents was socialism, communism, often allied with nationalism. that change in 1979 we saw the rise of jihadism as the dominant force driving terrorism around the world. he saw that with the takeover of

the embassy in iran. he saw that with the soviet invasion of afghanistan. you saw all those things coming together in a way that empowered jihadists. tendency to saya tennesse that they are fanatical. the history suggests otherwise. and proper strategy that we implemented in iraq which focused on security and tries to provide some of the legitimate needs of the people who want economic growth and jobs and freedom.

a strategy like that can be successful. we saw that in the surge in iraq. do not lose heart. the reality is most insurgencies' still fail. this is one of the big points i bring out in my book. insurgencies have not had as much success. they can be defeated if we use the proper procedures. host: here is a recent headline from "the los angeles times," written by our guest.

some more insight into that peace and and a question from twitter. guest: we have seen real progress in afghanistan over the several years. i have seen for myself. i went to the major areas targeted by the troop surge. i have seen our incredible soldiers and marines driving the taliban out of their strongholds. there has been real progress. violence in the country is down. u.s. in the security forces growing in size. are now - they are now 350.000

strong. we can afford to ramp down in afghanistan. generals like john allen understand the situation. they argue we should ramp down slowly and having perhaps 20,000 troops not on the front lines but it largely advice and assist capacity. the afghan security forces are getting better but still meet american help such as air support and logistics and intelligence. if we can continue supporting the afghans, ramping down our

,roop levels and spending they can police and defend their own borders against the taliban. all they need is a continuing degree of support. everything in our troops have tried to achieve over the past several years will be lost. we will still spend a lot less in afghanistan the matter will we do in years to come. will we spend enough to safeguard the investment we made there? i agree with the words by president obama. host: we have about 15 minutes left with our guest. henry is calling from kentucky

henry from kentucky is calling. caller: people around the world have always considered the american people the most uninformed and the most obtuse of any nation. i think is because the mainstream media distorts the truth so much and present the facts as they want the people to hear and see. the information that you get on the internet is a lot more reliable, because you can do research about who wrote it and what not. i find conflicting things that you say about what is going on iran the globe -- around the globe. the gun violence, there are staged events to get people behind the gun and assault ban

-- host: let's move on to florida. joseph, are you there? caller: how old were you in 1957? guest: i was-years old. host: why do you ask? caller: because you are really informed on what is going on in current times, and back in the 1950's when we used to do covert operations and there was a difference between conventional warfare than an hour. -- then an hour. i was trying to get in on the last caller and the gun control act. there is a simple way to do

this. if one person is convicted of a felony, they should have an "f" on their driver's license. host: senator john kerry is supposed to replace secretary clinton for secretary of state. what you think he might bring to the position? guest: i think it is a fine nomination. i would have been fine with susan rice as well. john kerry certainly has a lot of experience in foreign policy and he has shown he is a capable of foreign policy troubleshooter. in fact, he has been used in that capacity by the obama administration. i do not agree with him on all of the issues. i was troubled by his attempts to negotiate with bashar assad, who was very little credibility. he first voted against the war in iraq, then voted for the

surge that made it possible for us to rescue a failing situation. but i do not think he will truly for -- to truly make the foreign policy of the u.s. any more than hillary clinton really did. this is one of the most centralized foreign-policy positions of ever seeing with the president and a handful of close aides truly making those decisions. i think john carey will be a capable the plant carrying out those decisions. host: there will be a live hearing today. one of the nominees, chuck keiko, nominated to be the -- chuck heigl, nominated to be the defense secretary. what do you think about? guest: there is no question he has been outside the mainstream of the senate. do not get me wrong, his hair

was them in vietnam is something everybody should respect and his many years of service in the country, something for which i have the money -- the utmost respect. i am troubled by the fact that he has voted against sanctions on iran. he has voted against naming the iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization. my concern is that once he credibly steps back from some of those statements in his public testimony, which he very well may do, unless he does that, his confirmation could send it worrisome message. it might convince the iranians that there will be no serious negotiation. and it might convince the israelis that they cannot count on the united states to help with the iranian nuclear threat, which is a real threat for them. my concern is about what his nomination, what message that sense. --

what message that would send. host: we will cover the hearing with senator hagel next week as well. senator kerrey today live, 10:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span and from of the -- 10 a.m. eastern on c-span in front of the senate foreign relations committee. independent caller named richard, good morning. caller: good morning. what strikes me about this administration is that we do not know what his policy is -- i'm talking about president obama. the secretary of state hillary clinton, when she was addressing congress yesterday and asked about why they blamed the attack on ben ghazi and the ambassadors on some ngo maker

she said, what does it matter? the truth does not matter to these people. their objectives are unclear. leon panetta said to congress that we no longer take direction from congress as far as war and hostilities are concerned. we will take it from nato and the u.n. to, clearly a violation of the constitution. host: any reaction? guest: that is over the top because nobody in the a restoration has ever said they would ignore congress and only listen to the u.n. and nato. i have been critical of this administration, too. i have been critical of certain policies in places like afghanistan or iraq, but let's keep our differences on the policy level. let's acknowledge the fact that secretary clinton and her colleagues are honest policymakers trying to do the best job they can in a typical

set of circumstances. let's not question their motives. let's focus on genuine policy differences. i have those policy differences with this administration. it is crazy to me to engage in all of this conspiracy theory and name-calling. >> what do you think will be the biggest -- host: what do you think will be the biggest concern, or two, with this administration? guest: my concern is that you will see more retreat and retrenchment from this administration. my concern is that the administration pursued a fairly activist for policy in its first few years in office. but now, there is such a focus on our direct -- domestic problems, and on our debt, and they are real problems and we need to address them. but i'm worried that we will step back from our leadership

role and if we do that, the consequences could be tragic. the world needs a america. we are an indispensable nation. we need to play an important role in dealing with the problems and afghanistan, in libya, in dealing with what is going on in syria and in other countries. if we do not take an active role, our eyes are always going to step up to the plate like the french are doing in mali. there could be a security vacuum filled by our enemies. my concern is that the administration is going to retreat from this activist foreign policy and instead, focus entirely on domestic issues. we need to focus on those domestic issues, but we cannot afford to ignore the world and we cannot afford to step back for american leadership in the world. host: maverick wants to ask over twitter. mr. boot, some say the french is involve many --

in molly naille because they need to keep their nuclear reactors going. guest: there are natural resources that the french are concerned about, as are others, but the fundamental reason they are in mali is because the government there ask for help after these extremists to control and were bent on terrorizing the population entering this area into another afghanistan as far -- a another afghanistan. as far as i'm concerned, the french are right on. by concerned whether they have the right strategy and the resources they need to carry out that strategy. those are real issues. if you look at the history of insurgency, which are read about in my book, it takes a lot of resources and a lot of time to deal with an insurgency. it is not something that can be done overnight by a few hundred troops. i'm a little concerned that the french went in there thinking

they could achieve dramatic results with very little commitment. it will take a long time and effort not just by the french, but by the malian forces. i'm worried about the strategy and tactics, but in terms of what they are of two, i think arafat to the same -- i think they are fighting the good fight. i think they're up to the same thing that we are doing in fighting extremists. host: next caller, john, good morning. caller: i have read a maximum of four years and i think he is a very fine writer. -- i've read max boot four years and i think he is a very fine writer. and just -- i just tend to disagree about active as a journalist is appearing in the middle of the night again. five minutes after we leave afghanistan we will have no control whatsoever.

we had no control in pakistan. in there to kill bin laden, they waste a good helicopter in the process. they're lucky they all got out alive. we have no control, let alone to put off -- pull off a hit. i am concerned about schools in america. i'm a dad. i'm concerned about people's ability to get an education and job. there is a whole other agenda that has nothing to do with america. it has to do with materializing the world. host: reaction? guest: i agree with part of what the caller said. i think he is right that if we completely pull out of a country we lose any degree of control. that is what happened in iraq. the ability to renegotiate the

ability to keep american troops in the -- in iraq past 2011 was a tragic area -- error. it has also led prime minister malakand to be closely aligned with iran against our interests. -- prime minister maliki to be closely aligned with iran against our interests. the clinton administration, which i think guarded right in bosnia and cause a vote, when they went in -- got it right in bosnia and kosovo, when they went in and did what they did, they did not turn around and leave. that is a model that we need to think about. the bush administration in its

early years got it wrong. now the obama administration is getting it wrong with its animus against nation-building. we have to do some nation- building. this is not do gooding. this is for our own security. i'm a dad, too. i'm concerned about education, too. i'm concerned about our domestic problems, but the defense budget is not in bankrupting us. we are spending less than 4% of our gdp on defense, half the level we were spending in the cold war. we can afford a strong defense. in fact, we cannot afford to live without a strong defense. we need to have a strong america abroad. at the same time, obviously, we need to deal with our domestic problems. but we do not have to trade one for the other. host: 8 twitter message

responding to the other view were writing about molly. this one says that the french, right or wrong, are invalid because just as america did in iraq, it is in their national interest to do so. next caller, tom. caller: i have been hearing what you are saying in your book for the rust 10 years. -- the last 10 years. americans call it dishonorable the way the eastern militaries have been waging war for many years. they are in the fight to win. mullock o'mara says the americans have all the clocks,

but we have all the time. that sums up their whole philosophy. as long as they continue to ideologically survive in what ever mountain cave, then there were will still go on. guest: i would urge the caller to actually read my new book, "invisible armies." because if you do, you will see that some of what you are saying is actually myth. the guerrilla where for -- guerrilla warfare is not an eastern tactic. it is in all cultures. we used it in our revolution against the british. guerrilla warfare is the war of the week. it is the kind of warfare waged by anybody who does not have the power to create a conventional army. they rely on hit and run raids,

and russia's kayaleh and surprise. and right now -- enda ambushes and surprise. and right now that is what is being used by the insurgents. we can defeat these insurgents if we learn how these things work. that is what i try to do with "invisible armies." i hope you will check it out. host: one more look at the book. the author is a senior fellow on the council for foreign relations. thanks for your time. we will take a short time out and then talk with bradley shear. he is an attorney and will talk to about laws on workplace speech and how they apply to employers of social media outlets specifically. in the meantime, more news from c-span ready appeared

>> unemployment numbers show the number of americans seeking aid fell last week to the lowest level in five years. they say it is evidence that employers are cutting fewer jobs and a step up hiring. weekly unemployment applications dropped by 5002 seasonally adjusted 330,000. that is the fewest since january, 2008. gun violence is the focus of vice president biden today as he hosts a fireside google hang out, in modern day version of franklin delano roosevelt's fireside chats. he is also launching a campaign of road trips to promote gun control with a visit to virginia tomorrow, a state that has experienced its own school shooting, it maintains an avidly pro-gun tradition. edward now that president obama will nominate again richard cordray to lead the consumer

financial protection bureau. this after republicans in the senate to block his nomination in 2011. president obama used a recess appointment at the time to put mr. cordray in the jobs through 2012. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> 3 meters. >> contact. >> is glad to see you. >> it is hard to realize now 25 years after the apollo what the climate was like back then. in a way, after the stalin years and the khrushchev years and

kershaw of pounding the lectern with his shoe and the like, the soviets were very foreign to us. after some of the things that happened, we thought they were pretty aggressive people. i will say monsters, but they probably thought we were monsters. -- i won't say monsters, but they probably thought we were monsters. you break through those things pretty quickly when you deal with people in the same line of work. and when you are around them for a short time, you discover they are human beings. >> this weekend on american history tv, oral histories. a former nasa astronaut vance brand on the 1985 meeting in space between u.s. astronauts and soviet cosmonauts. that is sunday at 3:00 p.m. "washington journal" continues.

host: at the table maoist bradley shear, who is -- at the table is bradley shear, who was an attorney. your comment is that even if it enrages your boss, social net speech is protected. what are they talking about? guest: in general, employers have to be careful about creating social media policies. it cannot be overly broad. it has to be focused. there are many situations where employees have gotten fired for what they are saying on line. for example, if an employee talks about something and they disparage their boss, obviously, if you despair your boss in the offline world, that is basically treated the same way. there's a possibility you could get fired. however, talking about working conditions, and you are talking with other members of the work force about those working

conditions, that type of speech may be protected. host: there was a case out there that is the subject of a recent ruling. can you explain that case and cases like it? what is happening in the law here? guest: what is happening is that the nlrb is saying, employers have to have a better focus on what people are saying. if you're going to have a policy, focus the policy and have it done in a manner that is very concrete. for example, if you are going to say that you should not talk about certain confidential information, or you should be very careful with saying inappropriate comments on line, if you have a policy, you might want to give an example. for instance common harassing -- for instance, crossing posts or threatening violence, that is something that employes should not be doing online. however, is talking about working conditions, such as

saying, look, i'm working overtime and i'm very upset with this and you are trying to get a feel for what other co-workers are doing, that is something that could be protected. employees --c'mon in that case, employees were looking for the best way to handle the situation. in those types of instances, that is when the nlrb and says these types of situations are protected. host: many liken posting on facebook to the water cooler. what percentage of the companies in the country have addressed this? guest: there are some studies out there. one of them said something to the effect of 56% of these companies are addressing these types of issues and creating policies. recently, there are some companies that have policies

that are overly broad. one example that the nlrb has said is a very good policy as wal-mart's policy. if something is inappropriate, then it talks about whether it is harassing or threatening violence. the nlrb wants to have specific instances discussed the could create a workplace issue. host: if you have comments or questions for our guest, bradley shear. he currently runs his own company called shear socialmedia.com. he is a private practice lawyer and has worked with maryland government to helped draft social media law. the what was that like? guest: i worked with blood disorders and maryland, california, delaware -- i worked with legislators in

maryland, california, delaware. i worked with the congressman's office to draft legislation just last year it was an alumni function endicott i gave him my fast pitch and he created the legislation. since it is new and there was not any type of precedents in law, we were blazing a trail. it was fun to do also. host: back to what folks can post at work and what is allowed and what is not allowed, the "new york times" point out that there is a series of regulators -- how much strength of the nlrb

have in this area? guest: they focus on private employers. they are the first to really tackle these issues. since there is not much guidance in the law, the first -- as far as court cases go, there will be courts out there that look to the nlrb's ruling and what their guidance is. i will give you a perfect example of something i find very troubling. it was a case, i believe, in virginia, where several employees of a police department, they liked the facebook page of an opponent of the police chief. they were fired for allegedly blocking the page and then it has gone to court -- for allegedly liking the page

and then it has gone to court. the judge ruled that liking a page is not free speech. however, there are those out there that say it is a first amendment issue and it should be protected under of a walk. do host: states approach this in different ways? guest: state laws are there are beneficial to employers and employees. because what it says is, look, an employer does not have the right to request that you turned over your social media credentials. however, on the flip side, if you are not allowed to access to someone's social media credentials, then you do not have the liability. in michigan labelle was enacted a of weeks ago, they give the the liability to employers and to schools. there is a very troubling matter that is happening in schools all

over the country. host: the nlrb says an employee will have the right to engage with others in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other neutral aid or protection. our first phone call for bradley shear, murdoch is calling from virginia. caller: you are right, this is new ground. i find a lot of protections for the average citizen in social media fragging. i do not -- frightening. i do not utilize social media because i have very strong opinions about labor relations and employee rights and i live in a right to work state, which is a growing phenomenon as well. it has always been my understanding that in a right to work state, like virginia where

i live -- you just talked about the case with the police department that i'm -- which i'm familiar with. recently, i just looked at the laws in virginia, and if they had not given a reason for dismissal, and if your in a right to work states, like we are, then they do not have to give a reason for dismissal. they could have just ignored the real reason why they did it. as far as social media goes, it is not something i will utilize to try to voice my opinion until there is some sort of the bill of rights that does protect me, or at least defined what allowed to say or not allowed to say, or what i'm protected from if i do say something. these things are so unclear. i hesitate to utilize it myself.

when you work for an employer in virginia and they come to you and they say -- i once worked on a piece rate at 5 cents per foot of insulation. my employer comes to me and says, we need to cut your pay by 1 cent per fourth, because the company at the time -- there were posting record profits. whatever reason they gave, i ignored it. i stated my case and said, that his mark -- that is 20% of my pay. guest: you bring up a good point in that most jobs in this country, you can be fired for any reason that does not violate public policy, such as race, creed, national origin, or disability. you have to be very careful with what you say and do online. for example, i do not post that much on line. if you take a look at my media credentials, i do not get into

too much of my personal issues. in fact, i do not even talk about personal issues. i just talk about facts, and i do not say derogatory things about other people, or voice of a political opinions. anything you posted online may end up being utilized against you in either a court case or by your employer. board is in a civil case, such as getting a divorce. -- or if it is a civil case, such as getting a divorce. if it is something you do not want a lot of people knowing about, do not post. host: use it just having the ability to write before posting policy ideas. guest: i think it might of been congressman eisa a composed of some kind of internet bill of rights. it is a good idea, but getting

everyone to agree on what that should be, the devil is in the details. maybe one day will have some kind of bill of rights on line, but in general, any activity that is not acceptable offline and may get you fired offline will most likely get you fired if you do it online. you should not be saying derogatory things about your boss in the workplace offline, and so you should not be doing them on line. you never know who could be looking at the content. host: next call is from rhey, a republican. caller: i just want to know why you are covering social media. guns don't kill people. people kill people we had somebody stabbed somebody the other day with scissors.

i went to the hospital a few weeks ago and they caught me to intensive care. they sent me home with antibiotics shots and they would not do surgery on me at the hospital. and then i go to work and they turn around and fire me because i've got a toothache and they would not do nothing for me. there was a neurosurgeon here in town and they still would not do any surgery on me. and everyone to talk about medicaid and everything else c'mon -- and everything else. and you cannot get the treatment that you need to get. and then you have the president responding put airplanes in the middle east. host: anything you want to respond to? guest: there might need to be a lot out there -- for debora, -- for example, if you like the nra page, your boss may not like

that. host: is there a case where an employer can't demand is social media password? guest: there was a case, i believe it was new jersey, and it had to deal with the fed -- with a restaurant. some employees were using his social platform to complain about their work. the employer and ask for access to the content. they pushed one of their employees to give up the information. the employees' suit and they won. i believe that was a night -- a new jersey case. and there is also a case from the early 1980's.

there are a couple of cases out there. there is not lot that deals with social media protection. that is why there needs to be federal laws, in my opinion protect employee privacy. and also to protect employers from liability because some people might be saying, look, schools and employers should have the legal duty to see what everyone is doing online. the legal liability issues are tremendous. you want to protect the employees and you want to protect school students, their privacy, and you want to offer a shield to schools and employers saying, look, they do not have the duty to look at this stuff because it is off duty and off campus. host: a question on twitter. where is the line between

expressing your opinion and an active british official -- a an active prejudicial attack against an institution or individual? guest: that is a good question. every situation is a little bit different. in general, if you're going to be making comments on line, -- if they might not be popular, you might want to have an anonymous account. that is one of the duties of living in the united states -- that isn't a beauty of living in the united states, unlike china. -- that is a beauty of living in the united states, unlike china. it comes down to -- it is fact specific, but feel free to comment on line, but maybe do it anonymously if you are worried someone will allow you for your comments. host: next call from new york.

caller: i am a uaw member from upstate new york. thank you for c-span. you cited the nlrb ruling at the outset. my question is, how broad is this ruling? because organizing workers, that is section 7. how broad is this ruling? the nissan workers in tennessee are trying to form a union. they talk on facebook a month each other, does this ruling protect them? how broad is this ruling? guest: i do not want to speculate on how broad the ruling may be. everything is very new and there may be nuances to every case. and they may hinge on certain

facts. the bottom line, if you are doing something that is concerted activity and is mutual aid -- and the definitions of that are kind of flexible -- and that most likely will be protected. however, you ought to take a look at the facts of the case. every case will be a little different. that is why i cannot give you a pat answer. host: some corporate officials in this area are saying the nlrb is interim -- is intervening in social media in an effort to remain relevant. what do you think?

guest: i think the bottom line is, the nlrb, they are trying to take chernoff -- to take the chernoff -- take the current law and men should with new technologies. -- mesh it with new technologies. i think it is important for the nlrb to get it right. i think it would be productive if there were more conversations with the chamber of commerce and others to inform them about what exactly the nlrb is thinking about doing the nlrb is doing the best they can by putting of the rulings they are putting out. and they are putting out papers. they tried to give examples of what is an accepted social media policy and what is not. i think the nlrb is trying to create policy.

i do not want to speculate on whether or not they are doing this to stay relevant, but i think they are just trying to keep up with the times. host: union membership in this country is at its lowest point since the 1930's. gary is on the line from virginia, independent caller. caller: my comments are about whistle-blowers in the workplace. in general, whistle-blowers today are being prosecuted by the administration. the industrial military complex is just the tip of the iceberg. today in the workplace, you have nothing to say about anything. i was a 43-year teamster. i was fired from my job after 27 years because i was basically a

troublemaker because i took too much time and the company could not tolerate it because it was an influence on the other workers. after 27 years, i was thrown out with the garbage. whistle-blowers today -- and it is through the internet. the pilot -- this allen schwartz to just how himself -- who just hung himself because he had a problem with the judiciary of over a minor infraction on the internet, this whole thing is going down the tubes. it is almost a slave mentality. we need to do something to eliminate this problem. >> i think you bring up -- guest: i think you bring up some

very interesting point. that is why i think people should have the right to make anonymous comments on line. obviously, if someone is a whistle blower, once used -- you stick your neck out, i could create problems in the future. that is why you have to be careful with what you say, whether in person or on line. it just goes to show you that even in this day and age, you need to make sure that if you want something to be private, don't tweet it out, don't put it on facebook. make sure the people you're talking to you can trust. host: does a lot differentiate somebody posting something at home on their on-time and using company resources to make a posting? guest: the ruling has said, look, if you are doing this on your own time and it is concerted activity and for

mutual aid to help your fellow employees, then it should be protected. as far as whether something is protected whether you -- when you do it on a company's network or computer or a a iphone, you ought to be very careful. there is a pushing congress to be able to access personal accounts. this is my best piece of advice. do not access personal assets on your corporate computer or your corporate phone or any kind of corporate electronic device. because if you do, they may be able to have access to it. host: and this question turns of the other way. do companies have the right to privacy the same way people do? guest: companies want to have their confidential information

protected. in their social media policies, and joscelyn there employment policies, which the social media policy -- and also in their employment policies which the social media policy should be a part of, there is talk of companies having the right to protect their private information. host: a caller in michigan. what is your name? caller, are you there? i think we lost that caller. let's try pala in washington, d.c. caller: good morning, a gentleman. it is in reference to my sister, who was recently released from employment within the school system here. it was due to -- well, the school says it was due to a post that she made on facebook.

she went on vacation saying something like, ", i'm glad to get out of here and go on my way." i do not know what she put, but related to the folks at work left behind. nothing really derogatory, but they also mention the fact the she had posted a child's picture of the school -- at the school on facebook a few months ago. it is in this cute, etc. and she was released. it is all over the place on that release. and she told me that another individual and there had posted students pictures on line as well. she was not averse to do that. host: -- she was not the first to do

that. guest: i'm sure she would not -- will not be the last to do it either. in general, do not recommend teachers opposing school students on line unless they have gotten permission from the parents. -- posting school students on line unless they have got permission from the parents. anything you post on line could be utilized in any form or fashion. if a teacher is going to be utilizing facebook for the classroom, make sure they have permission from all the parents and all the students to add. there are certain rules laid out about what will be posted and the content i will be put out. in general, i would not recommend interacting with students on facebook, unless everybody knows what is going to be done. host: to the republican line in new york where topete is

calling. -- where betty is calling. caller: good morning. i have one question, but first commodified to make a comment. if you do not want anyone to know your business, why are you in the computer and putting that information on? if you are aware and if you make your children aware, and if you watched them, you do not have to say anything about the adults appear in some of them do not think twice about going on and putting a a personal information. in my opinion, they get what they deserve. my question to the gentleman is, what if we did not have any computers? and i remember what we did not have any. and we did not have these problems. guest: that is a very good point. i am of the opinion that you have to take a look and see what

people are doing. people now are communicating online in a fashion that no one imagined five years ago when i was little, -- five years ago. what i was little, we have the ibm pc jr. of the times. it was just utilizing computers for work and stuff. now people are using our phones to post personal stuff out there. it is a cultural shift in how people are expressing themselves. because of that, people are putting things up that may be inappropriate and could get them in trouble. you said that people deserve what they get when they put things up there. that is why i believe we need to educate people, especially in the schools. and you really need to educate employees and let them know what the rules of the road are.

and what is accepted behavior and what is not accepted behavior. these kinds of things could carry on with you for the rest of your life. >> who is leading the way in the business world, corporate and business america and helping to clarify things? guest: wal-mart put out a positive example of something that works well. i personally advised a lot of companies on these issues. schools, professional sports entities. the whole thing is to try to get it right, and it is hard. host: here is a twitter message. do partners have to be aware of their other half's work policy?

guest: i will give you a good example. i believe it was the mi5, i believe it is now the former head. his wife posted some family photographs out on a family trip. you cannot post photographs of the chief spy in the country. you never know who will be utilizing the content. you have to be very careful with what you posted online. it is a good idea to use discretion. if you do not feel comfortable with the post, and you think your partner may not feel comfortable with the post, do not put it on line prepared -- put it on line. host: next call for bradley shear.

caller: i have a question concerning the control of social media. i know some companies have monitoring software for their employees on how much they use social media. could there be a separate department that handles social media, such as pr or some other independent department within the company? thfifth guest: every company -- guest: every company has it ever way they want to handle social media. you want to have everybody on board and have everyone understand what everyone is doing, so you have good policy in place. and you want to have buy-in from your employees. if the employees do not understand what the rules of

arar, then you do not have buy- in. companies need to educate employees more. the biggest problem is the lack of understanding. host: we will try to get a couple more calls in for our guest. his bradley shear, an attorney. what is going on here? guest: i work a lot in the sports world . in talking about mateo, there is a think of -- a thing called kowt fishing, meaning someone used in disguise to communicate with

him. host: the senate foreign relations committee will be holding an event to confirm senator john kerry as secretary of state. secretary clinton would do the introduction of senator john kerry. it will be chaired by robert mendez. as soon as secretary clinton enda and senator kerry arrive, we will take you there. in the meantime, more on social media in the workplace. las vegas, bill katehi -- las vegas, bill. caller: i work on the internet full time and i have been a internet marketing for 20 years. i have seen social media and i

think it's pretty disgusting the way it is going right now. there is no way to enforce law, basically, to judge somebody based on what is on the internet. as soon as they pose any photograph, their identity is immediately gone. i could take somebody's photograph and you could take some this photograph, make a social media account, go to facebook and pretend i'm somebody else. there is no way to control this. for an employer to judge someone based on their social reactivity is ridiculous. i know people in the entertainment business. they get a giggs based on facebook likes. those things are faced every day. people take social media way too seriously, cyberbullies and, all of those things.

for an employer to judge a person's character, that violates everything about the constitution that our country stands for. guest: the problem is, you have a lot of people out there that are taking pictures of others, creating fake accounts, like what happened with the noda dame football player. they are utilizing social media in a way that are hurting others. and then there are people who are going on twitter and practicing social media credentials fraud. they are going out and try to get as many followers as possible. and then they on follow a lot of people to prove that they only have to follow a couple of people to make themselves look like they have the same following as a movie star or a professional athlete. there are many doing fraudulent things online. it is unfortunate that the way

the laws written this day and age, it provides a wide amount of protection for digital companies. at the end of the day, it is very difficult to police what is going on and on line. you think is a good idea to make companies liable for everything going on on line? you do something like that, and it may stifle innovation. that is the last thing we need in this type of economy. host: miguel, independent spirit -- independent. caller: do you think facebook had any effect on the election? host: what is your own answer to that question? caller: i'm asking you the question. host: ok, let's ask bradley shear. guest: literally, since 2004 when howard dean used the internet to start fund-raising, and in 2008 when president

obama had people from facebook help him out. and then in this last election cycle, i think social media is another platform to be utilized. i think every bit helps. at the end of the day, you ought to go out there as a politician and shake hands, kissed babies, to stump speeches. just social media will not do it. utilizing a social media is just one of the ways to get to the voters. host: juliet is -- julien is from massapequa. a democrat. caller: i'm not on any of that stuff. i do not have to worry that something i may have posted or said, and i get worried and wake up in the middle of the night and go back to look up something

that i posted what i was angry or upset, i don't have to worry about out. i talked to people directly. part of my job is talking to people directly. i'm very careful with what i say. i never got involved with facebook or any social media, and i'm glad. today, you've got to worry about that. if you've got to find another job, that could come back to haunt you. things that are put into print are very hard to take back once it is put out there. host: final thoughts on where the lot is headed. guest: i think we are literally out the cost of a new and exciting world as far as -- at the cusp of a new and exciting world as far as which weighed is going to go. but i think and that more needs to be done to protect employees and schools and employers.

you cannot have a lot of favors one side over the other. yauch to have to give and take. the bottom line is, it will be an exciting place to be and i will wait to see what is happening. host: bradley shear, thank you for your insights this morning. we appreciate all your calls. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern, as we are every day, with another edition of the "washington journal." we take you over to the hill where senator john kerry will have his nomination hearing for secretary of state. that is the senator's wife with her back to the camera there. the senate foreign relations committee will meet for a couple of hours. they will hear from the current secretary of state, hillary clinton, to do the introduction. the chairman is senator bob menendez. if you listen to part of this hearing, you can watch it later hearing, you can watch it later at c-